(The annotations to this game are by M. N.

Tal, from the fifth in his series of contemporary reports

from the weekly magazine ‘64’ (№ 20, 1974) – given in the form of a brief summary – and by M.
M. Botvinnik, from his work Tri matcha Anatoliya Karpova (Molodaya Gvardia, Moscow 1975).
The game is also annotated by A. E. Karpov in his autobiographical Izbrannye partii 1969-77
(Fizkultura i Sport, Moscow 1978); commentary from this source is also included. The
annotations have been edited in places to avoid repetition. In each case the translation from the
original Russian is by Douglas Griffin.)

Tal: After the 10th game there was virtually no doubt about the final result of the match,
although formally this game changed little. And, examining the 11th match-game, I cannot resist
an analogy with the 21st game of the match in Reykjavík. Both games Spassky conducted
extremely poorly. And both then and now, his opponents acted very confidently.

Karpov – Spassky
11th match-game, FIDE Candidates’ Semi-final, Leningrad, 10th May 1974

1.d4
Tal: Already now it cannot be considered a surprise that Karpov plays 1.d2–d4. Spassky chose
one of his favourite variations; the young grandmaster employed a plan introduced into practice by
V. Korchnoi.

1...Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5

XIIIIIIIIY
8rsnlwqkvl-tr0
7zppzp-+pzpp0
6-+-+psn-+0
5+-+p+-+-0
4-+PzP-+-+0
3+-+-+N+-0
2PzP-+PzPPzP0
1tRNvLQmKL+R0
xabcdefghy
Karpov: An interesting psychological moment. After White did not permit the Nimzo-Indian
Defence, Spassky avoids the quiet Queen’s Indian. Possibly, he still did not believe that his
opponent had had time to ‘learn’ all of the openings beginning with the move 1.d2–d4; after all,
only five times in my life had I opened the game with the move of the queen’s pawn in serious
competition.

4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 0–0 7.e3 b6 8.Be2

 Botvinnik: This system was introduced into practice by V. Korchnoi.

8...Bb7 9.Bxf6!
Botvinnik: Now there is obtained a position analogous to a well-known variation of the Grünfeld
Defence, encountered in the game Em. Lasker-Botvinnik (Nottingham, 1936). For comparison, it
developed as follows: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Bg5 Ne4 6.cxd5 Nxg5 7.Nxg5 e6
8.Nf3 exd5 9.e3 0–0 10.Be2 c6 11.0–0 Qe7 12.a3 Be6 13.Rc1 Nd7 14.Ne1 Nb6 15.Nd3 ad8
16.Nc5 Bc8 17.b4. The difference consists in the fact that instead of the useful move ...g7–g6,
Black has made the less expedient one ...h7–h6. This gives White some hopes of gaining an
advantage.

9...Bxf6 10.cxd5 exd5

Botvinnik: Of course, Black could not have taken on d5 with the bishop in view of its exchange
for the c3–knight, after which the weakening of the position due to the move ...b7–b6 makes itself
known in the presence of White’s light-squared bishop.

11.0–0
Botvinnik: On 11.b4 Black could have immediately replied 11...c5.
Karpov: In this system the queen is often developed on b3. Most often this is done on the 8th
move, while the bishop can immediately be developed on d3. From b3 the queen hinders the move
...c7–c5 (on which there follows d4xc5), and also holds up the development of the knight on d7.
Deserving attention is 11.Rc1, so as on 11...Nd7 to reply 12.Nb5 c6 13.Nd6.
XIIIIIIIIY
8rsn-wq-trk+0
7zplzp-+pzp-0
6-zp-+-vl-zp0
5+-+p+-+-0
4-+-zP-+-+0
3+-sN-zPN+-0
2PzP-+LzPPzP0
1tR-+Q+RmK-0
xabcdefghy
11...Qd6
Karpov: More often encountered is the set-up with 11...Nd7. In this case 12.Qb3 c6 13.e4
dxe4 14.Nxe4 c5 promises White nothing; if instead e3–e4 is not played immediately, then there
follows 12...Re8 and, perhaps, ...Nd7–f8–e6 with still another attack on the d4–pawn.

(Translator’s note: On 11...Nd7, a clue as to how Karpov may have intended to continue is
provided by the course of the game Furman-Klovans (USSR Olympiad, Moscow 1972): 12.b4 Re8?!
(correct is 12...c5!, as, incidentally, occurred in the 19th match-game Karpov-Kasparov, from Seville
1987)) 13.b5 Nc5 14.Nd2 Ne6 15.Qb3 Qd6 16.a4, etc.)

12.Rc1 a6
Karpov: 13.Nb5 must be prevented; in the case instead of 12...c6 the bishop on b7 is blocked,
and the ‘gate’ is opened for the e-pawn.

13.a3 Nd7 14.b4 b5

XIIIIIIIIY
8r+-+-trk+0
7+lzpn+pzp-0
6p+-wq-vl-zp0
5+p+p+-+-0
4-zP-zP-+-+0
3zP-sN-zPN+-0
2-+-+LzPPzP0
1+-tRQ+RmK-0
xabcdefghy
Botvinnik: ! Spassky carries out the same plan as the author of these lines in the above-mentioned
game. The transfer of the knight to c4 gives Black a level game.
Tal: An unexpected decision by the World Champion. Defending against White’s rather
abstract attack on the queen’s flank, Spassky once and for all renounces the advance ...c7–c5. He
dooms his queen’s bishop to inaction and creates a weakness for himself on a6. Admittedly, in
exchange for the c5–square Black gains a square on c4, but the value of the mutual acquisitions is far
fom the same. And if on the queen’s flank a relative balance is retained, it is White who is
prospering, as his 21st move shows. Incidentally, this breakthrough is more easily achieved as a
consequence of Spassky’s inaccuracy on the 15th move.
Karpov: In this variation of the Makogonov-Bondarevsky Variation it is almost impossible for
Black to be the first to become active. His task is to ‘dig in’ and to be ready to meet any attack by
the opponent fully-armed. With the move b2–b4 White weakened the square c4, and this
determines Black’s counter-play.

15.Ne1
Botvinnik: Remarkably, Karpov also manoeuvres ‘in the Lasker style’. However, perhaps
stronger, as Karpov himself considers was 15.Nd2, so as from the b3–square to prevent the
underminining move...a6–a5. In this case Black’s position would have been more passive.

15...c6
Karpov: !
16.Nd3
XIIIIIIIIY
8r+-+-trk+0
7+l+n+pzp-0
6p+pwq-vl-zp0
5+p+p+-+-0
4-zP-zP-+-+0
3zP-sNNzP-+-0
2-+-+LzPPzP0
1+-tRQ+RmK-0
xabcdefghy
16...Nb6?
Botvinnik: In the case of 16...a5! followed by the exchange on b4 and ...Nb6, Black would have
had no difficulties at all. Instead now White creates a weak pawn on a6, which somewhat hinders
Black’s defence.
Karpov: Black fails to exploit the opportunity presented to him. Playing 16...a5, he easily
equalises the game, opening the a-file and practically ridding himself of weaknesses. To Spassky it
probably seemed that the possibility of ...a6–a5 was not going to run away from him. After
White’s next move, Black’s situation becomes extremely difficult.

17.a4! Bd8
Botvinnik: ? The primary cause of Black’s defeat. It turns out that Spassky was not familiar with
the fundamental subtleties of such positions. Black’s main task consists in preventing the move
e3–e4. Therefore, while Black’s bishop is attacking d4, he can feel safe. Instead now Karpov
breaks through in the centre and goes over to a decisive offensive. After 17...Nc4! 18.Nc5 Rab8
Black could have defended succesfully.
Karpov: It is difficult to criticise Black for this move. Having run into the need to conduct a
passive defence, the ex-World Champion takes the decision to create the threat of mate, hoping to
exploit the weakening of the opponent’s castled position. In so doing, however, he breaks the
co-ordination of his pieces: the a8–rook is now doomed to stand in place and to defend the weak
pawn. Essential was 17...Rad8, permitting the bishop to painlessly retreat to c8. With the rook
on d8 and the bishop on f6, Black need not have been too afraid of a break in the centre, while the
opening of the a-file did not leave Black with any real weaknesses.

18.Nc5 Bc8 19.a5 Bc7

Botvinnik: Such ‘pin-pricks’ cannot change anything in the assessment of the position.

20.g3 Nc4 21.e4 Bh3 22.Re1

Botvinnik: Karpov correctly considers that the advance e4–e5 would only have given Black a
respite; White does not intend to close the centre.
XIIIIIIIIY
8r+-+-trk+0
7+-vl-+pzp-0
6p+pwq-+-zp0
5zPpsNp+-+-0
4-zPnzPP+-+0
3+-sN-+-zPl0
2-+-+LzP-zP0
1+-tRQtR-mK-0
xabcdefghy
22...dxe4
Botvinnik: It was better to hold back from this move.
Karpov: Creating a new weakness in Black’s position – the c6–pawn. In addition, the white
knights are activated, gaining at their disposal the excellent transit point e4. Spassky strives at all
costs not to permit the closing of the position. Indeed, after e4–e5 Black lost all possibilities of
active counter-play, but for White too the path to the opponent’s ‘gates’ was greatly lengthened. It
is difficult to indicate any move besides 22...dxe4. In the case of 22...Rfe8 23.Bf3 dxe4(?)
24.N3xe4 Qg6 25.Bh5 there is not the move 25...Qh7 on account of 26.Bxf7+! Kxf7 27.Qh5+; if in
this variation 24...Qe7, then 25.Nc3, and Black loses a pawn. Relatively best was 23...Be6. This
move can also be played immediately, but then e4–e5 gains in strength. After 23...Be6,
unfortunately the combination 24.Nxa6 Rxa6 25.exd5 cxd5? 26.Nxb5 Qc6 27.Nxc7 Qxc7 28.Bxd5
fails on account of 25...Bd7; the transposition of moves is not possible: 24.exd5 cxd5 25.Nxa6??
Qxa6.

23.N3xe4 Qg6
Tal: Probably, it would have been more difficult for White to win after 23...Qd8.

24.Bh5! Qh7
Botvinnik: In the case of 24...Qf5 25.Rc3! the unpleasant threat of 26.g4 arose.

25.Qf3 f5
Tal: A gesture of desperation. Only in such a way can one assess play for the win of a piece with
such completely scattered forces. The last possibility to somehow defend was 25...Qf5.
Botvinnik: Aiming at the win of the h5–bishop, but all of Black’s pieces are scattered across the
board and their action is not co-ordinated, while the sacrifice of material by White proves only
temporary. Exploiting his domination, White easily achieves a decisive advantage. In fairness we
note that the last possibility of defence was the move 25...Qf5.
Karpov: ? Losing by force. For the bishop White obtains an open 7th rank for the rooks and
and excellent positions for the queen and knight. After 25...Qf5 is would still not have been simple
for White to realise his advantage. Here is how events could have developed: 25...Qf5 26.Nc3
Bd6! (26...Rfe8 27.Qxc6; 26...Rfd8 27.Re7 Qxf3 28.Bxf3 Bd6 29.Rb7) 27.Qxf5 Bxf5 28.Bf3 Rfc8
or 26.Qxf5 Bxf5 27.Bf3 Rfc8! 28.Be2! Nd6 29.Bd3 with advantage for White.
XIIIIIIIIY
8r+-+-trk+0
7+-vl-+-zpq0
6p+p+-+-zp0
5zPpsN-+p+L0
4-zPnzPN+-+0
3+-+-+QzPl0
2-+-+-zP-zP0
1+-tR-tR-mK-0
xabcdefghy
26.Nc3 g6 27.Qxc6 gxh5 28.Nd5

XIIIIIIIIY
8r+-+-trk+0
7+-vl-+-+q0
6p+Q+-+-zp0
5zPpsNN+p+p0
4-zPnzP-+-+0
3+-+-+-zPl0
2-+-+-zP-zP0
1+-tR-tR-mK-0
xabcdefghy
Tal: As in the 9th match-game, Karpov played the final part of this game magnificently. In
principle, every one of his move merits an exclamation mark. As concerns Black, then 28...Bd6
would not do on account of the simple 29.Rxc4.
Botvinnik: With the irresistible threats of 29.Qxc7, 29.Ne7+ and 29.Re7.
Karpov: A picturesque position! The black bishop is under attack, and it cannot be defended.
Besides, 29.Re7 is threatened.

28...f4
Botvinnik: Black is already on the other side of good and evil.
29.Re7 Qf5
Botvinnik: Or 29...fxg3 30.Nf6+! (but not 30.Rxh7? gxf2+ 31.Kh1 f1=Q+ 32.Rxf1 Rxf1#)
30...Rxf6 31.Qxa8+ Rf8 32.Qxf8+ Kxf8 33.Rxh7.

30.Rxc7
Tal: As a result, White has obtained an overhelming material advantage, while retaining an attack.

30...Rae8
Botvinnik: 31.Ne7+ was threatened.

31.Qxh6 Rf7 32.Rxf7 Kxf7 33.Qxf4 Re2 34.Qc7+ Kf8 35.Nf4

XIIIIIIIIY
8-+-+-mk-+0
7+-wQ-+-+-0
6p+-+-+-+0
5zPpsN-+q+p0
4-zPnzP-sN-+0
3+-+-+-zPl0
2-+-+rzP-zP0
1+-tR-+-mK-0
xabcdefghy
Black resigned.
Tal. On 35.Nf4 the match came to an end.
Karpov: On 35...Qc2 there follows 36.Nce6+.